Repealing RGGI would hurt, not help, New Hampshire businesses

Saturday

Feb 26, 2011 at 3:15 AM

As an organization which deals very closely with New Hampshire businesses of all sizes and across industries and sectors, we strongly believe that pending repeal of the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative (RGGI) — through House Bill 519 — will prove detrimental to our state's long term economic opportunities, while negatively affecting our environment, human health, and the businesses already invested in the green economy of the future.

When New Hampshire committed in 2008 to cut CO2 emissions from power plants 10% by 2018, we were not alone. Indeed, 9 other states saw the value in taking positive, proactive steps toward reducing our collective dependence on fossil fuels for the sake of transitioning to a clean, green 21st century economy. Thus far, RGGI has generated more than $28 million in funding to help support energy efficiency and conservation efforts in both the public and private sectors. In doing so, New Hampshire has become a model for other states looking to bolster their own economic bases through investment in green technologies, in turn creating valuable jobs in cities, towns and regions that desperately need them.

The results of the program cannot be ignored. From helping to retrofit buildings to reducing the cost of installing solar PV systems, providing low income individuals with ways to insulate their homes or helping businesses conduct comprehensive energy audits, the successes of RGGI are as broad as they are copious. The result has been the steady growth of efficiency measures which have helped — not hurt — the state's economy by redirecting our energy consumption from outdated fossil fuels to the green sources and technologies of the future.

Setting aside for a moment the controversial "climate change" question, we can all agree on one thing: our state — and our country — would benefit greatly from a recalibration toward a new, 21st century green economy. Currently, more than 90% of New Hampshire's energy sources are imported, with 100% of our transportation fuels coming from outside our borders. At least 85% of our homes are heated with imported fossil fuels, while coal, natural gas and nuclear sources account for a vast majority of our electricity.

All told, New Hampshire spends over $2.6 billion every year to import petroleum products, according to figures provided by the Office of Energy and Planning. That's roughly the size of our entire state budget, or about $2000 per person, per year. That's $2.6 billion every year leaving our pocket books, our households, our local economy, our state, our region, our country, every single year — money that will never come back.

Meanwhile, proven technologies that utilize renewable sources such as solar, wind, biomass and geothermal — which are distributed, installed and engineered here in New Hampshire — remain in limbo. Indeed, it seems as though our deliberative body is less concerned with cutting our use of fossil fuels and the resulting exodus of money from our state, and more focused on cutting its nose off despite its face — playing politics in a way that betrays and ignores the promising prospects offered by clean technology and green businesses throughout our great state.

The bill as currently constructed includes the following, rather curious language: "There has been no credible economic analysis of the costs associated with carbon dioxide emissions reduction mandates and the consequential effect of the increased costs of doing business in New Hampshire."

We've been told innumerable times by the bill's proponents and advocates that RGGI has harmed our state's economy. But, judging by this passage, it seems as though even the bill's sponsors aren't so sure. What, then, is the basis for their disdain of RGGI, if such animosity can't be backed up by hard evidence? To us at least, it seems as though the aim being taken at RGGI emanates more from political posturing than any real, fact-based concern for the future of our economy.

Indeed, if what motivates the drafters of this legislation is the economic health and well-being of our great state, they need look no further than the 88 businesses in our organization — and countless others throughout the state — to see that that horizon is as green as it is within our grasp; that "going green" and "saving green" need not be mutually exclusive.

Despite the challenges presented by a still sluggish economy, we — along with our near 90 business partners, near 2,000 individual consumer members, and countless peripheral colleagues, confidantes and collaborators from throughout the region — have sought to prove that the future of New Hampshire's economy, and to an extent America's economy as a whole, depends on our continuing to foster a robust green sector dedicated, in part, to reducing our state's carbon footprint and overall environmental impact.

With that, we implore our representatives in the House: for the sake of our environment and our economic future, stop this bill.

Sarah BrownDirectorGreen Alliance

Editor's note:Green Alliance is a Seacoast-based organization which partners with and represents New Hampshire businesses looking to become more sustainable by reducing their carbon footprint. For more information please visit www.greenalliance.biz

Never miss a story

Choose the plan that's right for you.
Digital access or digital and print delivery.